Tuesday, 17 November 2009

Article from the BBC on 12th November I heard on BBC Radio international (675 AM in Hong Kong) said that they ice sheet was melting at an accelerating pace and if it all melted, it would raise global sea levels by 7 metres.

I thought this was strange from two angles: first, the common sense angle. It just didn’t sound right to me. Second, I had just seen a video of an expert from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration quoted on a greenie website. Asked what would happen if all the ice caps in the world – Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctica and all the glaciers – were to melt, he said that the world oceans would increase by about 6 metres. So, how could the melting of Greenland alone add seven metres just by itself.

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Still looking for that elusive “motive” as to why Nidal Malik Hasan, a pious Muslim who taught classes on the Koran's message to kill infidels, who talked with a radical cleric, who wanted Sharia to take priority over the US Constitution, who was "Muslim first and American second"... still wondering why he mass murdered at Fort Hood, Texas.Here’s a clue: I find that his name is an anagram of “hail dank animals”.But please don’t jump to conclusion about hails of bullets on those "dank animals", the unbelievers; we’re still looking, looking, looking, for that elusive motive, and that, after all, is just a clue….Another anagram: “mania kinda shall"? Mania kinda shall lead to deaths? I dunno; but don’t, don’t jump to conclusions.

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Here’s another thing I don’t get. Why do the MSM tie themselves up in Manhattan-sized pretzels trying to find reasons for Hasan’s murderous mayhem that are other than the most obvious one? Do they really, truly, believe that his religion had nothing to do with it? And if so, how could that be? And if they think that it does have something to do with it, but they won’t say so, why’s that? Is it squeamishness? Or fear? Or their bosses telling them they should not contemplate the thought? And if that’s the case, then why are their bosses saying that? Is it that they fear the loss of the Islamic advertising dollar? Or that they are scared? Or that their bosses, the owners of the media have Islamic investment? Or that they are scared? If it’s “political correctness”, why are they all so politically correct, when the blogosphere is not so? Do they fear being ostracized by their colleagues? Their friends? Do they think they’d better not report the religious angle because it could "lead to more hate"?

I just don’t get it.

So they go on “looking for motive”. They’ve road tested various possibilities, including that he was let down by his superiors for not having been counseled himself, that he was sneered at because of his “middle-eastern appearance”, or that he was upset about his deployment to Afghanistan. In short, it’s everyone’s fault but his.

In March 07, the “Half-Hour News Hour” sent up this failure to face reality. A nice skit, spot on for today. In fact, it’s hardly a send-up, given what’s happening now in refusal to face the simple fact that this fellow killed in the name of Islam…. The “terrorism expert” nearly says “don’t jump to conclusions”… (vide: Pres Obama)

BBC Radio runs a program called "Witness", in which listeners are asked to give an account of an historic event they witnessed. This week, of course, many about the downfall of the Berlin wall, 30th anniversary being today, or hereabouts. I sent the Beebs something about our witnessing of a huge demonstration in Beijing in October 1976, which accompanied the downfall of the Gang of Four (remember them?). I sent the note below, and they've responded by saying they are "very interested" in the story and want to ring me later this week. Standing by....

Monday, 9 November 2009

“News” that the military is looking for a motive behind Hasan’s killing of 13 people at Fort Hood.

Actually, they’re not looking for a motive, they’re looking for a “motive”. That is, something that will fool enough of the people, enough of the time, including fooling themselves, that there’s a motive other than the one starting us in the face: Sudden Jihad Syndrome. An egregious piece in today’s Herald Tribune test drives several “motives” and does not just downplay a religious one, it does away with it altogether!

“Investigators are still trying to determine Major Hasan’s motives, exploring his job pressures, harassment as a Muslim and his strong opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Oh, ok then, it does mention religion, but only from the point of view that others were, maybe, perhaps, horrid to him about his religion. Meantime, Obama says “don’t jump to conclusions”, by which I think he means: "don’t come to the conclusion that’s staring you in the face until we’ve had a chance to tell you what his motives are, and they won’t, they just won’t, have anything to do with religion."

“At the end of the day this is not about his religion — the fact that this man was a Muslim,” Senator Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Ignored in the search for our little Kitty, “Motive”, is the real motive:

Hasan proselytized about Islam when he should have been giving a medical presentation, he dressed in Islamic garb before he went on his rampage, he gave away his Korans and property before the killings (indicating premeditation), he shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he killed and harmed his colleagues -- that is, he told the world, as clearly as he could “I do this for my God, I do this for my Religion. My religion asks this of me.”

Any chance that the teachings of Islam, the commandments to kill the Kufaar, had anything to do with the shootings? Naaah.

The evolving elite consensus contends that Major Hasan is somehow a victim of our racist society. He must have suffered from low self-esteem because of his Muslim minority status. This is pure crap. Hasan is a fully credentialed psychiatrist and military officer. In other words, he represents the top ten percent regarding formal education and financial earnings. What is the likelihood that he has been severely persecuted because of the color of his skin and religious affiliation—in the year 2009? Let’s be blunt: next to zilch! At the most, Hasan may have overheard a couple of low ranked soldiers describe him as a towel head. A mature adult is expected to blow off such minor irritations, especially if they are a mental health professional. We can pretty well take it for granted that nobody dared call Hasan a “filthy Arab” to his face. That rarely, if ever, occurs in our present era. Thus, what does he have to complain about? Hasan is a guy who pretty well has it made. Numerous Americans would have been thrilled to trade places with him. Are Muslim-Americans supposedly so overly sensitive that any perceived slight offense is enough to set them off to commit mass murder? Good heavens, give me a break.

Update: In the International Herald Tribune article I hold in my hand (The International Herald Tribune is the Global Edition of the New York Times), the quote is as above, top of the page. In the online version of this article, via the NYT website, the very paragraph I have quoted above is amended to the one below. So from this they have removed even the racist/Muslim harassment "motive", and the opposition to the wars "motive". Hmmm, why would they do that? The effect is to throw the whole "motive" onto one possibility, the "strains of the profession", the poor dear. Will this little kitty do? Seems rather a burden, for such a weak little "motive".

"Major Hasan’s motives are still being investigated. But those who work day in and day out treating the psychological wounds of the country’s warriors say Thursday’s rampage has put a spotlight on the strains of their profession and of the patients they treat."

Saturday, 7 November 2009

Greg Barns ("Rudd's U-turn on refugees a mixed message to Asia", October 27) laces his piece on refugees with pejoratives: Australia is a "closed Anglo-European society", "inhumane and xenophobic" and, for good measure, "a selfish, xenophobic European outpost in Asia". In Barns' view, taking any account of public opinion is to be dismissed as "pandering" and "populist".

Australia is not a closed Anglo-European society at all, but open, vibrant, multicultural and tolerant. To suggest there is some kind of "mixed message to Asia" is to ignore the large number of Asian migrants from China, Vietnam and Southeast Asia (China is the third-largest source of Australians born overseas).

If Australians are concerned about Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians seeking entry to Australia, their concern is clearly not because they are non-Anglo-European, as Barns suggests. It is because the Australian public has the common sense to note that they come from Muslim societies; and that the lessons in Europe are that such immigrants have not - unlike those from Asia - assimilated or even integrated well into their host societies.

In Britain and Europe, around 30 per cent of all Muslims, in poll after poll, express support for sharia law with its draconian punishments of women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, adulterers and social drinkers. What is there to suggest Muslim attitudes in Australia would be any different? It is not intolerant, selfish or xenophobic to be concerned about that, as most Australians clearly are.

Note: the only bit cut out of my original, was the rather politically correct bit I included, quoting the Australian government:

As the Australian government says [*]:

“Since 1945, around 6.9 million people have come to Australia as new settlers. Their contribution to Australian society, culture and prosperity has been an important factor in shaping our nation”.

I hear on BBC this morning that Obama has urged people "not to jump to conclusions" about the motivation of Major Hasan who killed 13 people in a killing spree at the Texan army base yesterday. That "don't jump to conclusions" seems to be a code, used whenever the killing is done by a Muslim. I can't imagine the same would be said were the killer Christian, Buddhist or Atheist. It means: don't assume that his religion had anything to do with it (for Islam's a "religion of peace", doncha know).
But what happens if/when we find that the motivation was indeed to do with his religion. That he couldn't stand to see a Muslim country "attacked" by "Crusaders"? What conclusion will we then be urged not to jump to?Update: it seems the Major shouted "Alahu Akbar" before he started shooting. I wonder: he has made the connection between his religion and the shooting. The connection between his "God" being "Great" and the fact that the infidels had to be shot. He made that connection. What conclusion are we not allowed to come to now? That Islam had something to do with it? What tosh!Update 2: the blogosphere is spinning, of course, with the two opposing views of this: from the pro-Jihadis and fellow travelling apologists for Islam, vs the anti-Jihadis and critics of Islam. The former saying that this has nothing to do with religion, or, Obama-speak "don't jump to conclusions", which is a veiled way of saying, don't come to the conclusion that your common sense tells you -- "who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?". The latter pointing to the fact that Hasan gave away Korans on the day of the massacre, wore Islamic garb and shouted "Allahu Akbar" throughout, to make the link to his religion crystal clear. The two groups have mirror-image problems. The pro-islamists are bumping up against reality and common sense when they say that the killings have "nothing to do with religion", but they do have a gullible audience that "wants to believe", wants to believe that the killings are just random craziness, nothing to do with Islam, wants to believe that Islam indeed is a religion of peace. The anti-islamists have all the common sense and facts on their side (the fellow was doing this in the name, explicitly, of Allah, for God's sake!), but they have an audience unwilling to listen, and who thinks that to acknowledge the fact of the connection to Islam would be "Islamphobic", "bigoted", or, sillier, "racist". There is a massive global cognitive dissonance on the issue of Islam and violence.

Friday, 6 November 2009

I mentioned my auntie’s (RIP) conviction that there was some kind of weird rule in the universe: you don’t hear about something for ages, you may not even know about it, then you hear about it all over the place.

Another one today!Just this morning talking to my son as to whether dogs could speak.I asked him to discuss the issue with our Weimaraner, to see if dogs really could speak but simply didn’t;whether they spoke, but only in doggie language; or if they didn’t speak at all cause they couldn’t. In the course of his investigations into the issue, he looked up “speak” in the dictionary and it seems that speaking involves “words”, which would seem to rule out dogs. Then our Weimaraner pointed out that it depends on what you mean by “words”.

Then this afternoon, as if on my auntie’s cue from heaven, the following quote from Joe (Burnaby, BC), in the “Leopard Behind you”:

“ Dogs can talk. One only has to understand the vocabulary.”

This all in the search for an article on facial expressions and how they can affect your mood (instead of the mood affecting your facial expression).The idea being that just in the act of smiling you may feel happier.Though one hesitates to wander round with a face contorted into a rictus, in the attempt to elevate one’s mood.Found it hereby Olivia Judson, who goes on to say that one’s moods may be different depening on which language you’re speaking.And certainly speaking Italian does raise the spirit, wot, with all it’s uninhibited arm waving.She has a follow up here.

Ms Judson mentions German.Reminds me of the pom on our little yacht crossing the Atlantic a few years ago.He said that the war was all a big misunderstanding based on the sound of German.They hadn’t been declaring war, just asking the Brits over for a beer….

Son contemplates our Weimaraner talking and people being amazed.Son says he’d say“well, yeah, he can talk, but his grammar’s shocking…”.(Recalling the old Larsen cartoon with a dog mowing the lawn, but not in really straight lines; guest comments in amazement “my goodness, you dog can mow the lawn!”“Yes,” says the dog’s owner, “but look at what a dreadful job he does…”)

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Interesting article in today's South China Morning Post. Seems our motherland is kicking butt in the scientific arena. Note the areas that they're publishing most in, all of them industries of the future: "...atomic energy, space science, high-energy physics, biology, computer science and information technology"... where they "... have reached or are close to a recognisable international level of achievement."

Monday, 2 November 2009

... and who does it blow good for here? Interesting article in today's International Herald Tribune, about China's role in the manufacture of wind turbines for a wind farm in Texas.
It's always going to be hard keeping the manufacturing jobs in the US, given that the average manufacturing wage in China is $US 100 per month , about 3% of the US average. But is that all bad? Remember China's Minister of Commerce, our mate Bo Xilai, pointing out some time back that in a pair of Nikes, retailing in the US for around $US 300, China's factories making the shoes only got a few dollars. Most of the money went to the front end (research, development and design) and the back end (marketing, sales and profit), all of which were in the US. Could the same be so for wind energy? And what do the Green Inc critics of the detail suggest should be done? Protectionism? Check out North Korea to see where that leads....

Chinese role in wind farm creates anger

By Tom Zeller Jr Nov 01 2009

News last week of the first major influx of Chinese capital and wind turbine manufacturing expertise into the renewable energy market in the United States—a600-megawatt wind farm planned for the plains of west Texas—had many readers of the Green Inc. blog in a state of agitation.

‘‘I don’t understand why China is exporting wind energy to the U.S.,’’ wrote Mark from New York City.

As an ex foreign-affairie, I found the following report of ex FCO officer, Derek Pasquill's travails, fascinating and disturbing.

Derek Pasquill was a Foreign and Commonwealth Office man to his core. He was born to a diplomat father and service wife, weaned in its embassies, trained in its boarding schools and polished by its fine minds until he was ready to represent liberal Britain to a hostile world. The FCO was the only institution he really knew, and he took its benevolence for granted. His mother was German and his parents did not want to spend their days at drinks parties with cliquey expats who would not treat the overwhelming majority of their compatriots as their social equals, let alone foreigners. They toured his father's postings instead. When he was on holiday from his English boarding schools, they took him to the Roman ruins at Baalbek in Lebanon and the palaces of Ctesiphon, Iraq. Pasquill had an isolated but privileged childhood and he looks back on it with gratitude. His whole life had been leading him towards a career in the diplomatic service. It was his natural home.

Today, the FCO views him as the most devastating whistleblower in its recent history....

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Richard Dawkins in The Greatest Show on Earth, describes a “common fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam – X is true (or false) because of how much I like (or dislike) its consequences” (ibid p 402). That would about sum up the fallacy in the folks over at loonwatch, who argue that death for apostasy in Islam does not exist, despite the canonical and factual evidence for it. The don’t want it to exist – for then how could Islam be the “Religion of peace and tolerance”? -- so it doesn’t exist.

The censored my 800-word post (I posted it here instead), so I posted a little post, for they say that’s all they can bear. This was published and elicited a response from “Danios”, but again he censored my response, so again, I’ve posted it below.

Is this important, or is it just an obscure argument on religious theory? Well, it’s about whether or not there’s penalty for apostasy in Islam, up to and including the death penalty. So yes, it’s important, if you consider the 1.2 billion Muslims, many of whom may fear death if they leave that baleful ideology. People can and do get killed for leaving it . There’s Rifqa Bary who has fled her home in fear of her pious Muslim parents, as she’d left Islam for Christianity.

If you’re new to this issue, then no doubt you’re going to find that the thought any punishment at all for thinking for oneself is shocking. That one could be put to death for changing one’s religion is beyond shocking; it’s truly barbaric. Of course, the apologists will say that Christianity had centuries to reform itself, so you have to give Islam a chance (give pious a chance). But hey, folks, it’s been 1400 years already! And these days things happen rather faster than they used to in the dark ages – in the non-Islamic world, at least…

Anyway, the exchange is below, only the first two of which were published by “Danios”. Am I guilty of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy? You judge. Every time I check myself on it, I just have to raise my head from the keyboard and note that there are still eight countries that have the death penalty for apostasy, Iran as recently as 2008: Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In many other Islamic countries apostasy is punishable or actively discourage. Read on…

Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, confirms that there is punishment for apostasy, as does the Islamic Research Centre of al-Azhar University, supporting him: there is punishment “in this life” for apostasy. Article in Gulf News July 07.

Peter, thank you for keeping your post short and to the point. Unfortunately every single word and letter in your comment is incorrect, despite how knowledgeable you thought of yourself when you posted it.

First: Ali Gomaa is not the head of Al-Azhar. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and holds the highest position of authority there. Please click here to see that clearly. Tantawi’s view on apostasy is that “peaceful apostasy” is not to be punished. It is only to be punished if it is coupled with seditious acts against the state.

Second: as for the Islamic Research Department of Al-Azhar, here is their view on the matter:

“The Islamic Research Department of Al-Azhar University has called the penalty for apostasy as null and void and has said that the ways of repentance are open for the whole life…So an apostate can repent over his mistake anytime during his life and there would be no fixed period for it.” (source: Al-Alamul Islami, Rabita Alam al-Islami, Aug. 23rd, 2002)

Third: You are incorrect about Ali Gomaa. His view is that apostasy is only to be punished if the apostate poses a seditious threat to the state. Initially, his comments against the punishment for apostasy were included in the Washington Post. After that, Gulf News published an article saying that he was misquoted, which you duly included in your comment. Unfortunately, in your haste, you did not come to know that a third article was then published in the Middle East Times in which Ali Gomaa said that it was in fact the Gulf News which misquoted him. In the Middle East Times article, Ali Gomaa says: “Some members of the press and the public understood this statement as a retraction of my position that Islam affords freedom of belief. I have always maintained the legitimacy of this freedom and I continue to do so.” So the top two Imams of Sunni Islam reject the death penalty for apostasy.

Three strikes, Peter. You’re out.

Do you realize now why I didn’t approve your huge misinformed post before? It would have taken me too long to point out all your numerous mistakes.

Btilliant work Danios! I had a good chuckle at your response to Peter, you truly showed him up, i bet he is licking his wounds somewhere, and hasn’t had time to assess if he “enjoyed having his ass handed back”…Oh beautiful…… ROTFL

EDIT by Danios: Thanks for your comment. I snipped some of your post simply because I didn’t want to extend the debate. Hope you don’t mind and can trust me on this. Thanks.

My response, not published by Danios:

Danios,

Thanks for your response.

First, I did not say that Ali Gomaa was the head of al-Azhar. I said he was Grand Mufti.

Second, Ali Gomaa’s comments are hardly unqualified and ringing condemnations of penalty for apostasy, given that he calls it a “grave sin” (heavily punishable under Islamic law), and that apostates should be punished if they “endangered society”. (Who’s to decide that?). [1]

The same article notes that:

“In many Muslim societies, there is a long-held view – not necessarily supported by scripture - that the punishment for apostasy is death.”

“Not necessarily” means it is debatable.

Third, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sayyid Tantawi’s comments on apostasy [2] are that apostasy should not be punished only if it does not “pose a threat” or “belittle Islam”. “Belittling” of Islam is a loophole one could drive a truck through.

For example, Hossam Bahgat said: “Even though it is not a criminal offense in Egypt, [apostates] get detained under emergency laws or are put on trial for contempt of religion if they wish to convert.” [1]

Fourth, re the Islamic Research Centre (IRC) of al-Azhar, you quote (with no reference) a representative as saying, in 2002, that the penalty for apostasy is “null and void”. However, five years later, Mustafa Al Chaka a senior official of the IRC said: "He [Gomaa] cannot deny punishment in this life for the apostate." (Gulf News, July 24 2007 [3]). Is Mustafa Al Chaka an “Islamophobe”?

[A] Your conclusion: “So the top two Imams of Sunni Islam reject the death penalty for apostasy.”

[B] A disinterested conclusion: “Two of the top Imams of Sunni Islam make contradictory and qualified statements about the punishment for apostasy; if a legalist were looking for cause for capital punishment for apostasy, they would find comfort in those statements.”

"...it is the duty of those who have accepted Islam to strive unceasingly to convert or subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state."

-- Bernard Lewis, renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East, in The Political Language of Islam, p72-3.

In other words:

"Islam is unique among religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers."